• Un-Employer
  • Posts
  • Opinion: Publicly Labeling "Low Performers"

Opinion: Publicly Labeling "Low Performers"

TL;DR: Not a fan.

Intro

If you work in tech, follow the industry, or have seen any news of big tech layoffs, you've probably seen it paired with a message labeling those affected as “low performers.” This post is my opinion on why companies do this and how it impacts those who were/are affected.

Regardless of whether someone is a low performer, the idea of a company calling it out publicly is something I would have never thought I’d see until a couple of years ago. I think the concept of professionalism will become more one-sided as we get further into the future of AI where jobs are changing (and some are being replaced) and the current political climate (where you have freedom of speech or action without fear of repercussions unless you’re on the wrong side).

What I mean by this is that I think companies will continue to expect nothing but the best from employees at all times—undivided attention, alignment with the mission, obsession with the work, the driving of shareholder value, and so on. But, the second they deem you as not worthy, they drop you.

This isn’t anything new and doesn’t reflect how I feel about being laid off by Intuit. In fact, I’ve written and spoken before about not having hard feelings about the layoff (you can read that here). In the end, it’s a company decision if they’d like to part ways. That doesn’t mean they need to label everyone as low performers because, from what I’ve experienced, that’s simply not true.

Impact on those affected

TL;DR

Low performer is a sh*** way to publicly label thousands of people who need new jobs. 1,050 of 1,800 employees laid off by Intuit were labeled as low performers. Whether you were a low performer or not, people who read the label will remember it.

Of the 1,799 other employees who were impacted by the Intuit layoffs, I don’t know one who received a “does not meet expectations.” This doesn’t mean there weren’t people who received “Does not meet expectations,” it’s just one of the reasons that the broad labeling raises my blood pressure—because it’s not something that people typically look into. They see it, they remember it.

In my almost 4 years at Mailchimp, I was given a typical “Achieves Expectations,” just like I was during my “You’re being laid off” meeting. Ironically, the fiscal year that I was laid off was the year I was feeling good about work and trying to reach for that “Exceeds Expectations” through some growth and acquisition work.

The morning of the layoffs, I woke up to an email that included the message above on calling 1,050 of the 1,800 employees low performers to the entire company. I didn’t think anything of it at the moment because I was losing my job and had my “leaving Intuit” meeting 30 minutes later.

Now, while that leaves 750 who aren’t low performers, obviously there’s no way for anyone looking to hire you to know whether you’re wearing the scarlet label as a sign of shame (yes, I know it’s the scarlet letter).

This time around in my search, I’ve gotten significantly fewer screener calls for roles I’m qualified for. I don’t have proof that it’s because I was laid off, and I don’t even know if I believe that, but there’s always a little voice in my mind when I get a rejection email saying “What if?”

Why do they do it?

The stock price! Again, my opinion.

I don’t think it’s just to keep the stock price up. I also think that they need something to blame for laying people off and are continuing playing follow the leader (Elon with Twitter) to show that they can grow while being lean.

For Intuit specifically, I think that they feel they made a $13 billion mistake by purchasing Mailchimp. Not because of the company, but the price itself.

If you can keep your stock price up and try to make headlines about how you’re laying off employees to focus on efficiency or specific areas of an industry, I don’t see why you wouldn’t. My issue isn’t with the laying off, it happens.

As you know, my issue is with publicly labeling those employees as low performers. I just don’t see a reason for it other than “We f***ed up and need to blame this on something else.'“

In all honesty, I hope that the layoffs helped Mailchimp move more quickly and intentionally because, after the acquisition, it felt like a lot of work would be wasted before a leader changed the direction for the fifth time.

If you’ve been impacted by layoffs recently and have found this helpful, I’m glad! If you haven’t found it helpful, please send feedback to [email protected].

Happy Valentine’s Day ♥️

Thank you

I like writing and sharing my experiences, so thank you for taking the time to read through this. As always, you can find me on LinkedIn. Feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or feedback as I look to write about relevant topics. Check out some open job postings below!

Open product, design, and engineering jobs